YES! I don't even think I did it justice in this short piece. But understanding it as one wave in human consciousness certainly opens up the possibility space for thinking of a new wave ....
Bonnie, thanks for this article. I've been around and around in what you are offering. So, a couple of questions/observations:
I can see where dialectical reasoning can lead to greater abstraction in an attempt to hold contractions. In what ways does the abstraction itself create a "fuzziness" related to reality? And then, who gets to define that reality?
I can also see that dialectical reasoning creates a synthesis (of the binaries). It seems to me that takes away from the tension of the paradox or contraction and offers an easy or simple "fix" to a challenges or problem. This then leads to the tendency towards reductionist thinking? It would be great to hear your thoughts on this. I think our work is to be able to tolerate the complexities and paradoxes without falling apart.
Finally, the compulsion (my bias I know) towards dialectic reasoning avoids the deeper exploration of the binary itself (A, not A) i.e, the basis or driver of the binary itself.
It seems to me that one of the drivers of the meta-crisis is our problem solving practices - seeking simple solutions, linear cause-effect thinking, etc. And that dialectic reasoning is one of the reasons. (As an aside, dialectic reasoning can be helpful is many circumstances so not trying to negate it)
I realize I might have taken your article way off course so apologies.
What a great comment! You're really becoming a sophisticated thinker!
Yes, most people around the world have YET to develop dialectical thinking. So its good for them to enter that stage, from simple binaries. My work, of course, is always targeting the possibility of something new ... hence I go beyond dialectics-- I want to try to understand what is possible besides the synthetic or the deconstructive, when encountering these oscillations of opposites or paradox, or duality.
To build confidence, in what is possible, we first notice that the paradox or duality arises due to abstractions -- we codify experience into abstract categories which themselves are dialectically related. We note that there are no false premises in nature, for example. So we realize that we are not actually dealing with reality when we pose the question or the problem in this way.
Then the next step looks like what we keep doing here at the POP-UP School. WIdening the context, adding more reality into the constellation of the problem situation, etc...
Reality doesn't get defined (that immediately situates you in a partial reality) -- what you are trying to define is the context -- the context is transparently partial. So you are trying to discern what is the whole truth within this partial context. If there is still paradox, then the context has to be enlarged. Some questions -- the big existential ones -- need the context to include the whole of reality. Hence, they are never answered, just pursued (like a lover pursues the one they love).
This view of western/synthetic and eastern/deconstructive approaches as two variant unfoldings of the mental structure is illuminating.
YES! I don't even think I did it justice in this short piece. But understanding it as one wave in human consciousness certainly opens up the possibility space for thinking of a new wave ....
Bonnie, thanks for this article. I've been around and around in what you are offering. So, a couple of questions/observations:
I can see where dialectical reasoning can lead to greater abstraction in an attempt to hold contractions. In what ways does the abstraction itself create a "fuzziness" related to reality? And then, who gets to define that reality?
I can also see that dialectical reasoning creates a synthesis (of the binaries). It seems to me that takes away from the tension of the paradox or contraction and offers an easy or simple "fix" to a challenges or problem. This then leads to the tendency towards reductionist thinking? It would be great to hear your thoughts on this. I think our work is to be able to tolerate the complexities and paradoxes without falling apart.
Finally, the compulsion (my bias I know) towards dialectic reasoning avoids the deeper exploration of the binary itself (A, not A) i.e, the basis or driver of the binary itself.
It seems to me that one of the drivers of the meta-crisis is our problem solving practices - seeking simple solutions, linear cause-effect thinking, etc. And that dialectic reasoning is one of the reasons. (As an aside, dialectic reasoning can be helpful is many circumstances so not trying to negate it)
I realize I might have taken your article way off course so apologies.
What a great comment! You're really becoming a sophisticated thinker!
Yes, most people around the world have YET to develop dialectical thinking. So its good for them to enter that stage, from simple binaries. My work, of course, is always targeting the possibility of something new ... hence I go beyond dialectics-- I want to try to understand what is possible besides the synthetic or the deconstructive, when encountering these oscillations of opposites or paradox, or duality.
To build confidence, in what is possible, we first notice that the paradox or duality arises due to abstractions -- we codify experience into abstract categories which themselves are dialectically related. We note that there are no false premises in nature, for example. So we realize that we are not actually dealing with reality when we pose the question or the problem in this way.
Then the next step looks like what we keep doing here at the POP-UP School. WIdening the context, adding more reality into the constellation of the problem situation, etc...
Reality doesn't get defined (that immediately situates you in a partial reality) -- what you are trying to define is the context -- the context is transparently partial. So you are trying to discern what is the whole truth within this partial context. If there is still paradox, then the context has to be enlarged. Some questions -- the big existential ones -- need the context to include the whole of reality. Hence, they are never answered, just pursued (like a lover pursues the one they love).